Damnation?

[natters]

The KJV teaches that you can receive "damnation" for resisting appointed authorities (Rom 13:1-2), eating meat while doubting (Rom 14:23), eating and drinking the Lord's supper unworthily (1 Cor 11:29), or if you're a widow under 60 and remarry (1 Tim 5:9-12).

Most other versions use "judgment" or similar in these passages instead of "damnation".

Are any/all of these doctrinal errors in the KJV? Any KJV-perfectionism supporters care to comment? What say ye?

 

[HankD]

The word "damnation" might have been appropriate in 1611.

That was then....

HankD

 

[Johnv]

Natters, we today associate being "damned" with condemnation to Hell. The Elizanethan meaning of the word is broader. To be damned roughly equates to us saying that we are being judged. The Greek context referrs to judgement. However, I don't think that the word difference is a matter of doctrinal error. It's a matter of language evolution.

 

[HankD]

...this is now.

HankD

 

[natters]

I would agree with both comments above. But then I wonder: how would KJV-only people argue that using "judgment" instead in these verses (like other versions) would be an error, corrupting God's word? Wouldn't they have to argue that damnation is correct and judgment is incorrect?

Michelle? RaptureReady? Askjo? I'm curious what you think about this.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

No problem with the word "damnation" in its 1611 sense.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Everyone with a functioning brain realizes that the inspired Greek word might have 4-5 different English words that COULD be used legitimately. Look in a Strongs and see the various ways almost every Greek word IS translated in various NT passages.

So damnation, which does NOTand DID NOT mean "consigned to an eternal hell".

Strongs: krima, kree'-mah; from G2919; a decision (the function or the effect, for or against ["crime"]):--avenge, condemned, condemnation, damnation, go to law, judgment.

 

[natters]

Again, I agree. But would a KJV-only person be OK with changing "damnation" to "judgment" or "condemnation" in these verses? If not, why not?

 

[DeclareHim]

They shouldn't because in there KJV 1611 1 Corinthians 11:29 when damnation is used there is an alternate rendering at the bottom of the page "Or, judgement" so there is their own version saying it could be translated judgement.

 

[Johnv]

DH,

You're correct, but KJVO's don't accept the margin note for lucifer which reads "or day starre".

 

[DeclareHim]

Good point I guess the translators thoughts don't count.

 

[Trotter]

That's OK, since most KJVO's don't think...except to follow Gail & Pete & any other yahoo who toots his horn loud enough to be heard over the din.

Seriously, it is the choice to be 'wilfully ignorant' that characterizes most KJVOites. When someone shoves their fingers in their ears, shuts their eyes tight, and shouts, "LA-LA-LA-I-CANT-HEAR-YOU-LA-LA-LA!", then you know just what you are dealing with.

My question is: Why? What are they afraid of? That they may find out that they are wrong? That they may come to realize that they have bought into a lie? That they may be bored to sleep?

I just cannot understand anyone choosing to remain in ignorance. But, then, once they have heard what really is and ain't, you don't call it ignorance, do ya?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Lacy Evans]

A whale is a fish.

Lacy

 

[natters]

A lucifer is a morning star.

Brian

 

[GrannyGumbo]

A famine is still a famine. Amos 8:11-12

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by C4K:
No problem with the word "damnation" in its 1611 sense.

You don't live in 1611.
You live in 2004. Your 1611 talk is not the
talk of 2004.

Consider FUNDAMENTALIST.
From 1920-1980 it meant a member of a
protestant movement that stressed the
basics of the Bible in a literal way.
1980-1990 it mean any member of any
book Religion (usually Christian, Muslim,
or Jewish) who stuck to the main
fundamentals of their religion.
1990-2004 it means BIGOT, especially one
who interperts their religious book
literally.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Trotter:
I just cannot understand anyone choosing to remain in ignorance. But, then, once they have heard what really is and ain't, you don't call it ignorance, do ya?

I figured it out. Here is my cut:

----------------------------
The fundamentals of fundamentalism:

1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

The fundamentals of anti-fundamentalism
(these are the noisy ones called "fundies"):

1. Anti-Modern Version (KJBO = King James Bible Only)
2. Anti-education
3. Anti-success
4. Anti-women pants on women
5. Anti-Semetic

Typical statements of the anti-fundamentalist called
by the world "fundies":

1. The KJB replaces the origial language manuscripts
as being God's word
2. Calling "seminary": "cemetery"
3. Billy Grahmn sold himself to the Devil
4. (this is generic for all cult-like rules of behavior;
all majoring on minors)
5. Jews killed Christ

 

[Dr. Bob]

Granny

I'm still trying to find definite answers to WHEN the KJV revisions began REMOVING the translator's notes, thereby implying that there were no other choices of words than those in the text.

 

[robycop3]

A conversation is a lifestyle.
An ouch is a brooch.
A morning star is either Jesus, or something He gives the believer.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by HankD:
The word "damnation" might have been appropriate in 1611.

That was then....

HankD

And why not today? Damnation is still in existence today, judgement has not yet occurred.